In 2011, former President Barack Obama set up a travel ban that restricted travel of people from the same seven countries targeted by Trump’s “Muslim Ban.” But there are at least two important differences between Trump’s ban and Obama’s. For one thing, Obama’s travel ban wasn’t popularly known as a ban on Muslims and for another thing, it was clear that Obama never really intended to enforce his travel ban as refugees from those middle eastern regions poured in almost unabated after he signed the initiative.
Trump had this to say about the two executive orders, “My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror. To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting.”
This was accurate. It is not a ban on Muslims. There are roughly 24 countries in the world with a significant amount of Muslims among their populations, yet the travel ban only restricts six of them. So the ban is clearly not about keeping a certain religion or ethnicity from freely entering our country. It is about restricting travel from countries that have been engaged in hostilities with the U.S.
Perhaps in recognition of this, the U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson has curtailed the injunction that he issued against Trump’s revised ban.
The move follows the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the injunction but took note that portions of the injunction were too broad.
Judge Watson narrowed it, clearing the way for the Trump administration to perform reviews of other nation’s vetting processes for refugees and migrants while the case is under review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
John Kelly, the Homeland Security Secretary called it a “big win,” while others were more reserved.
CNN, predictably, begged to differ.
“This is a narrow, but significant, win for the government,” Steve Vladeck, a CNN legal analyst said. “But it could have the opposite effect. The purpose of the ban was to enable the government to conduct an internal review. If it is now able to do that while the ban remains on hold, it could undermine the justification for the ban.”
But this is just rhetorical maneuvering. Vladeck’s statement is illogical on its face. While the ban is on hold, the fact that it is on hold does not mean that travel should not be curtailed or stopped in the future. One does not spill a little milk and then pour out the entire jug on principle.
The fact is that the dialing down of the injunction is a victory for the White House- not because the travel ban is going well- it isn’t. It’s a victory because it shows that the leftist narrative that the ban is racist and mean spirited is starting to show signs of stress.
The left is having trouble maintaining the fervor of the low-information voters who watch its news outlets. The facts about the previous ban make the claims about the current ban seem petty. And the fact that the narrative is monotonous, carrying the same droning, accusatory tone as the Russian hacking story, is driving President Trump’s opponents back to their armchairs.
But Trump’s travel ban isn’t the only area where the left’s narrative is wearing thin. The Russia ‘hacking’ (or ‘collision’ [depending on what channel you watch]) narrative is also losing steam. Even liberal pundits are admitting that they are getting tired of hearing the same old line about Team Trump hacking the DNC with the help of the Russians while the claims continue to fall flat and zero evidence emerges.
The fact that the travel ban was tailored back does not mean there was any good reason for tailoring it back. This is the basic mistake- people assume that federal judges are not activists. But when you look at the fact that the 2011 ban and the 2017 ban are virtually identical- then it’s clear that not everything is about serving the interests of the public- and that activist judges are muddying the law with their personal opinions.
So the cutting back on the restrictions on the ban shows that the narrative is flagging, that there was good reason for the travel restrictions imposed by the Trump Administration in the first place, and that the willpower of spurned Hillary supporters is winding down- as it inevitably would.
~ American Liberty Report